On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Adam R. B. Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > *Python Gump (as a future replacement for traditional Gump)
+0 as long as it can do everything that the "traditional" Gump can. -1 otherwise. I won't find the time to learn enough Python to jump into coding so I can't be +1. I've already had my share of code contributions to the "traditional" Gump and expect to keep supporting it. > *Python Gump using Forrest I don't care at all, honestly. > *Gump Statistics (as a tool for automatically communicating > reuse/reliability/robustness, etc.) Depends on the kind of statistics. I'm really concerned about reliability/robustness values computed from Gump failures. > *Gump and Ruper (using Ruper to download packages) I'm not sure whether Ruper can help a lot when many of the installed packages require you to click through a license. > *Distributed Gump Trees (also using Ruper to download upstream Gump > outputs) > *Gump Documenter (as a tool for communicating the OSS map, and > promoting) I don't think I understand these 8-) > *Promoting more gump projects in public Gump (do resources exist, > will the 7+++ hours grate on Stefan?) > *Promoting more public/private/personal Gumps. > *Promoting more OSS Gumps (e.g. on SF.net. on Java.net, etc.) Marketing has never been my business and will never be. +0. Stefan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
